DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the Applicant’s submission filed 28 June 2026 [hereinafter Response] has been entered, where:
Claims 1, 23, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 10 and 18 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 are pending.
Claims 1-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 are rejected.
Drawings
3. The objection to the drawings as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) is WITHDRAWN in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the Specification.
Specification
4. The objection to the disclosure because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code is WITHDRAWN in view of the Applicant’s amendment to the Specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
5. 35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method, which is a process, and thus one of the statutory categories of patentable subject matter. (35 U.S.C. § 101).
However, under Step 2A Prong One, the claim recites the limitations of “computing, using a classical computer, a modified quantum state,” “generating a modified quantum circuit based on the quantum circuit,” and “wherein the modified sub-circuit is configured to apply an inverse transformation on the modified quantum state of the one or more qubits at one or more subsequent cycles of the modified quantum circuit.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims covers simulations of quantum components through a classical computer, which is not inconsistent with the Applicant’s disclosure. (MPEP § 2111; see, e.g., Specification ¶ 0023 (“the executable quantum c1rcuit may comprise a machine representation that can be executed by a quantum hardware compiler, a logical program circuit that can be simulated by a classical computer or engine, or the like.”)). The activities of “computing,” “generating,” and “apply” contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, are a mental process, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III), which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas. Also, the activities of “computing,” “generating,” and ““apply” are mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations, and accordingly, are a mathematical concept, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub I), which is also one of the groupings of abstract ideas.
The claim also recited more details or specifics to the abstract idea of “computing” where “the modified quantum state is computed based on an application of a transformation on an initial quantum state,” and “the initial quantum state is associated with one or more qubits, a quantum circuit comprising the one or more qubits and an original sub-circuit that is configured to set the initial quantum state on the one or more qubits,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea. The claim also recites more details or specifics of the abstract idea of “generating,” where “the modified quantum circuit is configured to be executed by a quantum computer,” and “the modified quantum circuit comprising the one or more qubits,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea. The claim also recites more details or specifics to the abstract idea of “. . . apply an inverse transformation,” where “the inverse transformation is configured to inverse the transformation,” and “whereby an application of the inverse transformation in the modified quantum circuit is configured to restore the initial quantum state or an approximation thereof,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the claim as a whole is not integrated into a practical application, because the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception include a “classical computer,” a “quantum circuit,” an “original sub-circuit,” a “modified quantum circuit,” which are generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality, and are used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites more details or specifics to the additional element of “quantum circuit,” “comprising the one or more qubits and an original sub-circuit that is configured to set the initial quantum state on the one or more qubits,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. The claim also recites more details to the additional element of the “modified quantum circuit,” that “comprises a modified sub-circuit, the modified sub-circuit is configured to set the modified quantum state on the one or more qubits of the modified quantum circuit during one or more cycles of the modified quantum circuit,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element.
The claims further recite “executing, by the quantum computer, the modified quantum circuit,” which is the use of a generic computer component (quantum computer) to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea.
Finally, under Step 2B, the additional elements, taken alone or in combination, do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements include exception include a “classical computer,” a “quantum circuit,” an “original sub-circuit,” a “modified quantum circuit,” which are generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality, and are used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites more details or specifics to the additional element of “quantum circuit,” “comprising the one or more qubits and an original sub-circuit that is configured to set the initial quantum state on the one or more qubits,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. The claim also recites more details to the additional element of the “modified quantum circuit,” that “comprises a modified sub-circuit, the modified sub-circuit is configured to set the modified quantum state on the one or more qubits of the modified quantum circuit during one or more cycles of the modified quantum circuit,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. The claims further recite “executing, by the quantum computer, the modified quantum circuit,” which is the use of a generic computer component (quantum computer) to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 12 recites an apparatus, which is a product, and thus one of the statutory categories of patentable subject matter. (35 U.S.C. § 101).
However, under Step 2A Prong One, the claim recites the limitations of “compute, using a classical computer, a modified quantum state,” “generating a modified quantum circuit based on the quantum circuit,” and “wherein the modified sub-circuit is configured to apply an inverse transformation on the modified quantum state of the one or more qubits at one or more subsequent cycles of the modified quantum circuit.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims covers simulations of quantum components through a classical computer, which is not inconsistent with the Applicant’s disclosure. (MPEP § 2111; see, e.g., Specification ¶ 0023 (“the executable quantum circuit may comprise a machine representation that can be executed by a quantum hardware compiler, a logical program circuit that can be simulated by a classical computer or engine, or the like.”)). The activities of “computing,” “generating,” and “apply” contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, are a mental process, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III), which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas. Also, the activities of “computing” and “apply” are mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations, and accordingly, are a mathematical concept, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub I), which is also one of the groupings of abstract ideas.
The claim also recites more details or specifics to the abstract idea of ““compute” where “the modified quantum state is computed based on an application of a transformation on an initial quantum state,” and “the initial quantum state is associated with one or more qubits, a quantum circuit comprising the one or more qubits and an original sub-circuit that is configured to set the initial quantum state on the one or more qubits,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea. The claim also recites more details or specifics of the abstract idea of “generating,” where “the modified quantum circuit is configured to be executed by a quantum computer,” and “the modified quantum circuit comprising the one or more qubits,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea. The claim also recites more details or specifics to the abstract idea of “. . . apply an inverse transformation,” where “the inverse transformation is configured to inverse the transformation,” and “whereby an application of the inverse transformation in the modified quantum circuit is configured to restore the initial quantum state or an approximation thereof,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 12 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the claim as a whole is not integrated into a practical application, because the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception include a “a processor” “coupled memory,” a “classical computer,” a “quantum circuit,” an “original sub-circuit,” a “modified quantum circuit,” which are generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites more details or specifics to the additional element of a “quantum circuit,” “comprising the one or more qubits and an original sub-circuit that is configured to set the initial quantum state on the one or more qubits,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. The claim also recites more details to the additional element of the “modified quantum circuit,” that “comprises a modified sub-circuit, the modified sub-circuit is configured to set the modified quantum state on the one or more qubits of the modified quantum circuit during one or more cycles of the modified quantum circuit,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element.
The claims further recite “executing, by the quantum computer, the modified quantum circuit,” which is the use of a generic computer component (quantum computer) to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 12 is directed to the abstract idea.
Finally, under Step 2B, the additional elements, taken alone or in combination, do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements include exception include a “processor,” “coupled memory,” a “classical computer,” a “quantum circuit,” an “original sub-circuit,” a “modified quantum circuit,” which are recited at a high-level of generality, and are used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites more details or specifics to the additional element of “quantum circuit,” “comprising the one or more qubits and an original sub-circuit that is configured to set the initial quantum state on the one or more qubits,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. The claim also recites more details to the additional element of the “modified quantum circuit,” that “comprises a modified sub-circuit, the modified sub-circuit is configured to set the modified quantum state on the one or more qubits of the modified quantum circuit during one or more cycles of the modified quantum circuit,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. The claims further recite “executing, by the quantum computer, the modified quantum circuit,” which is the use of a generic computer component (quantum computer) to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 12 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 20 recites a computer program product, which is a product, and thus one of the statutory categories of patentable subject matter. (35 U.S.C. § 101).
However, under Step 2A Prong One, the claim recites the limitations of “compute, using a classical computer, a modified quantum state,” “generating a modified quantum circuit based on the quantum circuit,” “wherein the modified sub-circuit is configured to apply an inverse transformation on the modified quantum state of the one or more qubits at one or more subsequent cycles of the modified quantum circuit.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims covers simulations of quantum components through a classical computer, which is not inconsistent with the Applicant’s disclosure. (MPEP § 2111; see, e.g., Specification ¶ 0023 (“the executable quantum circuit may comprise a machine representation that can be executed by a quantum hardware compiler, a logical program circuit that can be simulated by a classical computer or engine, or the like.”)). The activities of “computing,” “generating,” and “apply” contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, are a mental process, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III), which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas. Also, the activities of “computing” and “apply” are mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations, and accordingly, are a mathematical concept, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub I), which is also one of the groupings of abstract ideas.
The claim also recited more details or specifics to the abstract idea of “compute” where “the modified quantum state is computed based on an application of a transformation on an initial quantum state,” and “the initial quantum state is associated with one or more qubits, a quantum circuit comprising the one or more qubits and an original sub-circuit that is configured to set the initial quantum state on the one or more qubits,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea. The claim also recites more details or specifics of the abstract idea of “generating,” where “the modified quantum circuit is configured to be executed by a quantum computer,” and “the modified quantum circuit comprising the one or more qubits,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea. The claim also recites more details or specifics to the abstract idea of “. . . apply an inverse transformation,” where “the inverse transformation is configured to inverse the transformation,” and “whereby an application of the inverse transformation in the modified quantum circuit is configured to restore the initial quantum state or an approximation thereof,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 20 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the claim as a whole is not integrated into a practical application, because the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception include a “non-transitory computer readable medium retaining program instructions, which program instructions when read by a processor,” where the instructions executed on generic computer components does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Also, the claim recites a “classical computer,” a “quantum circuit,” an “original sub-circuit,” a “modified quantum circuit,” which are generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality, and are used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites more details or specifics to the additional element of a “quantum circuit,” “comprising the one or more qubits and an original sub-circuit that is configured to set the initial quantum state on the one or more qubits,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. The claim also recites more details to the additional element of the “modified quantum circuit,” that “comprises a modified sub-circuit, the modified sub-circuit is configured to set the modified quantum state on the one or more qubits of the modified quantum circuit during one or more cycles of the modified quantum circuit,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. The claims further recite “executing, by the quantum computer, the modified quantum circuit,” which is the use of a generic computer component (quantum computer) to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 20 is directed to the abstract idea.
Finally, under Step 2B, the additional elements, taken alone or in combination, do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements include exception include a “non-transitory computer readable medium retaining program instructions, which program instructions when read by a processor,” where the instructions executed on generic computer components does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Also, the claim recites a “classical computer,” a “quantum circuit,” an “original sub-circuit,” a “modified quantum circuit,” which are generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality, and are used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites more details or specifics to the additional element of “quantum circuit,” “comprising the one or more qubits and an original sub-circuit that is configured to set the initial quantum state on the one or more qubits,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. The claim also recites more details to the additional element of the “modified quantum circuit,” that “comprises a modified sub-circuit, the modified sub-circuit is configured to set the modified quantum state on the one or more qubits of the modified quantum circuit during one or more cycles of the modified quantum circuit,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. The claims further recite “executing, by the quantum computer, the modified quantum circuit,” which is the use of a generic computer component (quantum computer) to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 20 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Claims 13, 16, and 17 depend directly or indirectly from claim 12. The claims recite more details or specifics to the abstract idea of “said computing the modified quantum state,” where (claims 2 and 13: wherein said computing the modified quantum state comprises: applying the transformation on the initial quantum state, to thereby obtain a transformed quantum state; and compressing the transformed quantum state to obtain the modified quantum state”; claim 4: wherein the one or more coefficients are selected to be removed by said compressing based on a determination that the one or more coefficients are insignificant”; claim 6 and 16: “wherein execution of the quantum circuit utilizes a quantum resource, . . .”; claims 8, 9, and 17: wherein the modified quantum state comprises a scarce representation of the initial quantum state”; claim 9: “wherein the initial quantum state is represented by a first set of coefficients over a first state base, and the scarce representation utilizes a second set of coefficients over a second state base, wherein the first set of coefficients comprises a greater number of coefficients than the second set of coefficients”), and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea. The abstract idea of these claims are not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor do they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), because the claims recite no more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 16, and 17 are subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 3 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. Claim 14 depends directly or indirectly from claim 12. The claims recite more details or specifics to the abstract idea of “the transformed quantum state” where (claims 3 and 14: “wherein the transformed quantum state is represented by a set of coefficients in a state base,” and “said compressing comprises removing one or more coefficients from the set of coefficients”), and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea. The claims also recite more details or specifics of the abstract idea of “. . . apply an inverse transformation,” (claims 3 and 14: “whereby the inverse transformation enables to provide a partial reconstruction of the initial quantum state and not a full reconstruction of the initial quantum state”), and accordingly, is merely more specific to the abstract idea. The abstract idea of these claims are not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor do they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), because the claims recite no more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 3 and 14 are subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 5 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. Claim 15 depends directly or indirectly from claim 12. The claims recite further recite “selecting the transformation from a set of potential transformations.” The activity of “selecting” can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, are a mental process, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III), which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas. The claim also recites more details or specifics of the abstract idea of “selecting,” “wherein said selecting is performed based on at least one of: a first amount of quantum resources required for setting the modified quantum state on the one or more qubits,” and “a second amount of quantum resources required for applying the inverse transformation on the one or more qubits at one or more subsequent cycles of the modified quantum circuit,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea. The abstract idea of these claims are not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor do they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), because the claims recite no more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 5 and 15 are subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 7 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. The claim recites more details or specifics of the abstract idea of “generating the modified quantum circuit,” “wherein said generating the modified quantum circuit comprises setting the modified quantum state on the one or more qubits using one or more quantum state setters,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the abstract idea. The abstract idea of these claims are not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor do they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), because the claims recite no more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 7 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 11 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. Claim 19 depends directly or indirectly from claim 12. The claims further recite “determining the initial quantum state, wherein the initial quantum state is determined by executing the quantum circuit or a representation thereof,” which is a pre-processing insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, (MPEP § 2106.05(g)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical solution. Also, this is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of data retrieval, (MPEP § 2106.05(d) sub II.iv), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 11 and 19 are subject-matter ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1, 7, 11, 12, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Published Application 20190197426 to Kawano et al. [hereinafter Kawano].
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 20, Kawano teaches [a] method (Kawano ¶ teaches “a method through a classical computer and a method through a quantum computer are separately described”) of claim 1, [an] apparatus comprising a processor and coupled memory (Kawano ¶ 0533 teaches “the computer including a processor (hardware processor), such as a CPU (central processing unit), and memories, such as a RAM (random-access memory) and a ROM (read-only memory)”) of claim 12, and [a] computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium (Kawano ¶ 0546 teaches a computer (a classical computer and a quantum computer), the processing details of functions to be included in each apparatus are written in a program. Execution of the program on the computer achieves the processing functions on the computer.”) of claim 20, comprising:
computing, using a classical computer (Kawano ¶ 0104 teaches “a transformation apparatus 1 . . . includes classical computers 11 and 13 (first and second classical computers), a quantum computer 12, and a controller 14 [(that is, using a classical computer)]”), a modified quantum state, the modified quantum state is computed based on an application of a transformation on an initial quantum state (Kawano ¶ 0222 teaches “[t]he computation apparatus 5 of this embodiment receives n-dimensional vectors aj=(a1J, . . . , anj)T, g=(g1, . . . , gn)T and an integer N1 as inputs, and obtains and outputs, as the difference vector t(d), (d1, . . . , dn)T, satisfying the aforementioned Formula (10) representing [learning with errors (LWE)]. The difference vector t(d) is the solution of the modified LWE represented in Formula (5) [(that is, the “difference vector” is an initial quantum state)]; Kawano ¶ 0224 teaches the “basis setter 51 sets the LLL-reduced basis [(that is, the modified quantum state is computed based on an application of a transformation on an initial quantum state)] computed from {a1 . . . , am, N’ε1, . . . N’εn} as the basis B, and further outputs t=g=(g1, . . . , gn)T (step S51)”),
the initial quantum state is associated with one or more qubits, a quantum circuit comprising the one or more qubits and an original sub-circuit that is configured to set the initial quantum state on the one or more qubits (Kawano ¶ 0534 teaches a “quantum gate type quantum computer applies, to the quantum bits, a manipulation [(that is, “manipulation” is inherently an original sub-circuit that is configured to set the initial quantum state on the one or more qubits)] corresponding to the quantum gate. This application sequentially changes the encoded quantum state in the set of quantum bits (qubits) [(that is, “changes the encoded quantum state” is the initial quantum state is associated with one or more qubits and an original sub-circuit that is configured to set the initial quantum state on the one or more qubits)]”); and
generating a modified quantum circuit based on the quantum circuit (Kawano, Fig. 6, teaches a quantum circuit of the quantum computer 12 of Fig. 5 [Examiner annotations in dashed-line text boxes):
PNG
media_image1.png
786
1032
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kawano ¶ 0271 teaches “[t]he quantum state generator 72a performs quantum manipulation corresponding to the following transformation, for the first register that stores the quantum state of Formula (11), and a quantum bit (second register) in a newly prepared initialized quantum bit in the quantum state
|
φ
”;
[Examiner notes the plain and ordinary meaning of “modified” is simply that which is changed from its original form. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a "modified quantum circuit" includes one that is based on modified quantum states that covers the teachings of Kawano, which is not inconsistent with the Applicants' specification. (MPEP § 2111; see, e.g., Specification ¶ 0028 ("a modified quantum circuit may be generated, in which the modified states are prepared on the respective qubits instead of the initial states"))]),
the modified quantum circuit is configured to be executed by a quantum computer (Kawano ¶ 0001 teaches “a quantum computing technology that performs operations by a quantum computer [(that is, the modified quantum circuit is configured to be executed by a quantum computer )]”),
the modified quantum circuit comprising the one or more qubits (see Kawano ¶ 0534 teaches a “quantum gate type quantum computer applies, to the quantum bits, a manipulation corresponding to the quantum gate. This application sequentially changes the encoded quantum state [(that is, the modified quantum circuit)] in the set of quantum bits (qubits) [(that is, the modified quantum circuit comprising the one or more qubits)]”),
wherein the modified quantum circuit excludes the original sub-circuit (Kawano ¶ 0224 teaches a “basis setter 51 sets the LLL-reduced basis [(that is, the modified quantum state)] computed from {a1, . . . , am, N′ε1, . . . , N′εn} as the basis B, and further outputs t=g=(g1, . . . , gn)T (step S51)”)
([Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “modified quantum circuit” is one that is based on modifying quantum states, which is not inconsistent with the Applicants’ specification. (MPEP § 2111; see, e.g., Specification ¶ 0028 (“a modified quantum circuit may be generated, in which the modified states are prepared on the respective qubits instead of the initial states”)), and inherently, the modified quantum circuit excludes the original sub-circuit)],
wherein the modified quantum circuit comprises a modified sub-circuit (Kawano, Fig. 6, teaches a modified sub-circuit [Examiner annotations in dashed-line text boxes]:”
PNG
media_image2.png
1118
1593
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kawano ¶ 0127 teaches a “subset of the data register 121 b that includes in units of each ceil(log2 N) quantum bit is called a data sub-register 121 b-i [(that is, a “data sub-register” pertains to the modified quantum circuit comprises a modified sub-circuit)]”),
the modified sub-circuit is configured to set the modified quantum state on the one or more qubits of the modified quantum circuit during one or more cycles of the modified quantum circuit (Kawano ¶ 0218 teaches “computation (quantum computation) by the quantum computer and computation (classical computation) by the classical computer use, as a subroutine, the processes (third embodiment) of computing the solution of GapCVPγ for the modified [learning with errors (LWE)] transformed in the second embodiment to compute the solution of LWE (FIG. 3) [(that is, the modified quantum state)]”; Kawano ¶¶ 0224-25 teaches “[t]he basis setter 51 sets the LLL-reduced basis [(that is, an application of a transformation on an initial quantum state)] computed from {a1, . . . , am, N′ε1, . . . , N′εn} as the basis B [(that is, the modified sub-circuit is configured to set the modified quantum state on the one or more bits of the modified quantum circuit during one or more cycles of the modified quantum circuit)], and further outputs t=g=(g1, . . . , gn)T (step S51). Hereinafter, the operations identical to those in the fourth embodiment are performed, thereby obtaining and outputting the difference vector t(d)”; Kawano ¶ 0010 teaches “an object to provide a method of combining a classical computer and a quantum computer in a hybrid manner to solve a lattice problem at higher speed than conventional methods. That is, the object is to provide a method that can be achieved even by a quantum computer incapable of having a long execution time period [(that is, “time period” is during one or more cycles of the modified quantum circuit)] owing to decoherence due to noise and can solve the lattice problem in a shorter time period than conventional methods, by causing the classical computer to deal with light tasks in the entire computation process and by causing the quantum computer to deal with heavy tasks therein”),
wherein the modified sub-circuit is configured to apply an inverse transformation on the modified quantum state of the one or more qubits at one or more subsequent cycles of the modified quantum circuit (Kawano ¶ 0130 teaches “[t]he observer 125a observes the index register 121a after the execution through the inverse quantum Fourier transformation unit 126 [(that is, the modified sub-circuit is configured to apply an inverse transformation on the modified quantum state of the one or more qubits at one or e more subsequent cycles of the modified quantum circuit)], and obtains an observation result rj0 (step S126)”),
the one or more subsequent cycles of the modified quantum circuit are subsequent to the one or more cycles (Kawano, claim 1, teaches “the inverse quantum Fourier transformation unit is configured to execute M-dimensional inverse quantum Fourier transform on the index register that stores the quantum state after observation by the second observer [(that is, a subsequent inverse transformation is the one or more subsequent cycles of the modified quantum circuit are subsequent to the one or more cycles)]”),
the inverse transformation is configured to inverse the transformation (Kawano ¶ 0081 teaches execution of N-dimensional quantum Fourier transform; Kawano ¶ 0130 teaches “observer 125a observes the index register 121a after the execution through the inverse quantum Fourier transformation unit 126, and obtains an observation result rj0”;
[Examiner notes that a Fourier transform transforms a function of time (or space) into a function of frequency, and accordingly, an inverse Fourier transform transforms a function of frequency into a function of time (or space)]),
whereby an application of the inverse transformation in the modified quantum circuit is configured to restore the initial quantum state or an approximation thereof (Kawano ¶ 0081 teaches execution of N-dimensional quantum Fourier transform; Kawano ¶ 0130 teaches “observer 125a observes the index register 121a after the execution through the inverse quantum Fourier transformation unit 126, and obtains an observation result rj0”;
[Examiner notes that a Fourier transform transforms a function of time (or space) into a function of frequency, and accordingly, an inverse Fourier transform transforms a function of frequency into a function of time (or space) [(that is, to return to the “time domain” inherently is whereby an application of the inverse transformation in the modified quantum circuit is configured to restore . . . an approximation thereof)]]);
executing, by the quantum computer, the modified quantum circuit (Kawano ¶ 0120 teaches a “quantum computer 12 (FIGS. 4 to 6) receives (L, n, M, N, R, B, t) as inputs, sets (prepares) a register string . . . and executes quantum computation m times on the string [(that is, executing, by the quantum computer, the modified quantum circuit)]”).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Kawano teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectively, as described above in detail.
Kawano teaches -
wherein execution of the quantum circuit utilizes a quantum resource (Kawano ¶¶ 0117-18 teaches “[t]he classical computer 11 outputs (L, n, M, N, R, B, t) (step S119). That is, the classical computer 11 uses the classical computer to generate (L, n, M, N, R, B, t) [(that is, the “classical computer” is the initial quantum state is determined by executing . . . a representation thereof)], which are parameters required to start computation on the quantum computer from the input (B, t)”; Kawano ¶ 0120 teaches “[t]he quantum computer 12 (FIGS. 4 to 6) receives (L, n, M, N, R, B, t) as inputs [(that is, receives the initial quantum state)]”),
wherein execution of the modified quantum circuit does not utilize the quantum resource (Kawano ¶ 0099 teaches “the [closest vector problem (CVP)] is transformed into the modified [learning with errors (LWE)] by an operation (quantum computation) through a quantum computer and an operation (classical computation) through a classical computer (FIG. 2) [(that is, “LWE” is the modified quantum circuit, where the “classical computer” is execution of the modified quantum circuit does not utilize the quantum resource)]”).
Regarding claim 7, Kawano teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above in detail
Kawano teaches -
wherein said generating the modified quantum circuit comprises setting the modified quantum state on the one or more qubits using one or more quantum state setters Kawano ¶¶ 0224-25 teaches “[t]he basis setter 51 sets the LLL-reduced basis [(that is, an application of a transformation on an initial quantum state)] computed from {a1, . . . , am, N′ε1, . . . , N′εn} as the basis B [(that is, generating the modified quantum circuit comprises setting the modified quantum state on the one or more qubits using one or quantum state setters)], and further outputs t=g=(g1, . . . , gn)T (step S51). Hereinafter, the operations identical to those in the fourth embodiment are performed, thereby obtaining and outputting the difference vector t(d)””).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Kawano teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectively, as described above in detail.
Kawano teaches -
further comprises
determining the initial quantum state, wherein the initial quantum state is determined by executing the quantum circuit or a representation thereof (Kawano ¶¶ 0117-18 teaches “[t]he classical computer 11 outputs (L, n, M, N, R, B, t) (step S119). That is, the classical computer 11 uses the classical computer to generate (L, n, M, N, R, B, t) [(that is, the “classical computer” is the initial quantum state is determined by executing . . . a representation thereof)], which are parameters required to start computation on the quantum computer from the input (B, t)”; Kawano ¶ 0120 teaches “[t]he quantum computer 12 (FIGS. 4 to 6) receives (L, n, M, N, R, B, t) as inputs [(that is, receives the initial quantum state)]”).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
10. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
11. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
12. Claims 2-5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US Published Application 20190197426 to Kawano et al. [hereinafter Kawano] in view of US Published Application 20060123363 to Williams et al. [hereinafter Williams].
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Kawano teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectively, as described above in detail.
Kawano teaches -
wherein said computing the modified quantum state comprises:
applying the transformation on the initial quantum state, to thereby obtain a transformed quantum state (Kawano ¶ 0224 teaches the “basis setter 51 sets the LLL-reduced basis [(that is, applying the transformation on the initial quantum state, to thereby obtain a transformed quantum state)] computed from {a1 . . . , am, N’ε1, . . . N’εn} as the basis B, and further outputs t=g=(g1, . . . , gn)T (step S51)”
[Examiner notes that the term “modification” and “transformation” are synonymous, and accordingly, a “modified quantum state,” introduced in claim 1, is synonymous to a “transformed quantum state”]); and
* * *
Though Kawano teaches transforming an initial state via a LLL-reduced basis algorithm, Kawano, however, does not explicitly teach –
* * *
and compressing the transformed quantum state to obtain the modified quantum state.
But Williams teaches –
* * *
and compressing (Williams ¶ 0083 teaches “compactification techniques for reducing the number of gates [(that is, “compactification” is compressing)]”;
[Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “compressing” is synonymous with compacting, which is not inconsistent with the Applicant’s disclosure (MPEP § 2111), and accordingly, covers the teachings of Williams])
and [compressing] the transformed quantum state to obtain the modified quantum state (Williams ¶ 0048 teaches “[a] systematic algebraic approach to quantum circuit design is used in the present invention to find a quantum circuit for an arbitrary unitary transformation [(that is, an “arbitrary unitary transformation” serves to produce the transformed quantum state to obtain the modified quantum state)]”).
Kawano and Williams are from the same or similar field of endeavor. Kawano teaches combining a classical computer and a quantum computer in a hybrid manner of applying an algorithm involving a transformation of a quantum state to a modified quantum state. Williams teaches a desired quantum computation which can then be mapped into equivalent circuit fragments, and describes a number of rules allowing such circuits to be compactified.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s effective filing date to modify Kawano pertaining to a modified quantum state with the compactification rules of Williams.
The motivation to do so is to “join these quantum circuit fragments together, while applying circuit compactification rules to minimize the size of the resulting circuit. The net result is a quantum circuit capable of implementing any (real or complex) unitary matrix, specialized to use one of several types of 2-qubit gates, appropriate for different physical implementations of quantum computing hardware.” (Williams ¶ 0060).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, the combination of Kawano and Williams teaches all of the limitations of claims 2 and 13, respectively, as described above in detail.
Williams teaches -
wherein the transformed quantum state is [(a.3.1)] represented by a set of coefficients in a state base (Williams ¶ 0007 teaches “a qubit can exist as a zero, a one, or simultaneously as both 0 and 1, with a numerical coefficient which when squared in absolute value, represents the probability for each state [(that is, generally with a state, “the transformed quantum statis represented by a set of coefficients in a state base)]”),
said compressing comprises removing one or more coefficients from the set of coefficients (Williams ¶ 0076 teaches “compactification rules eliminate unnecessary gate operations [(that is, to “eliminate” is removing one or more coefficients from the set of coefficients )] including rotations and phase shifts through an angle of zero or 2nπ, combine contiguous sequences of Ph-, Ry-, or Rz-gate operations, accumulate phase gates into an overall phase, compress sequences of CNOT gates having the same embedding, and implement bit-reversals by explicitly rewiring the circuit (rather than implementing such operations computationally). . . . [K]nown "special case" unitary operators (such as the [quantum Fourier transform (QFT)]) are found to have smaller circuits than random unitary operators”;
[Examiner notes that “rotations and phase shifts through an angle of zero or 2nπ,” based on an orthonormal basis for the vector space, represent the state as a linear combination of the basis vectors, with each term multiplied by a complex coefficient in relation to the “phase”]),
whereby the inverse transformation enables to provide a partial reconstruction of the initial quantum state and not a full reconstruction of the initial quantum state (Williams ¶ 0083 teaches “embodiment computes the circuit for a particular unitary matrix U and also computes the circuit for the inverse matrix of U. These two computed circuits are then examined to determine which is smaller and that circuit is used. Another embodiment is referred to as randomized compactification that uses a heuristic approach to arrive at a compact circuit [(that is, a “smaller circuit” is the inverse transformation enables to provide a partial reconstruction of the initial quantum state and not a full reconstruction of the initial quantum state )]”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kawano and Williams teaches all of the limitations of claim 3, as described above in detail.
Williams teaches -
wherein the one or more coefficients are selected to be removed by said compressing based on a determination that the one or more coefficients are insignificant (Williams ¶ 0115 teaches “quantum circuit design tool of the invention attempts to find the smallest circuit for a given unitary operator, U, by applying circuit compactification rules. These eliminate unnecessary gates from the circuit while preserving its correctness [(that is, “unnecessary gates” is the one or more coefficients are selected to be removed by said compressing based on a determination that the one or more coefficients are insignificant)]”).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Kawano teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectively, as described above in detail.
Williams teaches -
further comprising
selecting the transformation from a set of potential transformations (Williams ¶ 0083 teaches an “embodiment computes the circuit for a particular unitary matrix U and also computes the circuit for the inverse matrix of U [(that is, “unitary matrix U” and “inverse unitary matrix U” is selecting the transformation from a set of potential transformations)]. These two computed circuits are then examined to determine which is smaller and that circuit is used.”), wherein said selecting is performed based on at least one of:
a first amount of quantum resources required for setting the modified quantum state on the one or more qubits; and a second amount of quantum resources required for applying the inverse transformation on the one or more qubits at one or more subsequent cycles of the modified quantum circuit (William ¶ 0115 teaches “[a]nother way in which circuits can be compactified is by computing the circuit decomposition of a desired unitary operator, U, together with the circuit for its inverse, U\ [(that is, “desired unitary operator, U” is a first amount of quantum resources required for setting the modified quantum state on the one or more qubits)]. If the circuit for U is smaller, then we are done, else the circuit for U\ is smaller, in which case we negate the angles, and read the gates in the opposite direction [(that is, “inverse operator U\” is a second amount of quantum resources required for applying the inverse transformation on the one or more qubits at one or more subsequent cycles of the modified quantum circuit)].”).
13. Claims 8, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US Published Application 20190197426 to Kawano et al. [hereinafter Kawano] in view of Gleinig et al., “An Efficient Algorithm for Sparse Quantum State Preparation,” IEEE (2021) [hereinafter Gleinig].
Regarding claim 8, Kawano teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above in detail.
Though Kawano teaches a qubit can exist as a zero, a one, or simultaneously as both 0 and 1, with a numerical coefficient which when squared in absolute value to represents the probability for each state, Kawano does not explicitly teach –
wherein the modified quantum state comprises a scarce representation of the initial quantum state.
But Gleinig teaches -
wherein the modified quantum state comprises a scarce representation of the initial quantum state (Gleinig, left column of p. 433, “I.A Background and Problem Formulation,” first paragraph, teaches “describing an n-qubit quantum state classically requires specifying all 2n amplitudes cx. However, in many interesting quantum states, most of the coefficients cx are zero. We call quantum states with this property sparse quantum states [(that is, any quantum state having the characteristic with “coefficients cx are zero” are ones having a scarce representation of the initial quantum state)]”).
[Examiner notes that the claim term “scarce” is synonymous with the term sparse; accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “scarce” covers the teachings of Gleinig pertaining to sparse matrices, which is not inconsistent with the Applicant’s disclosure (MPEP § 2111)).
Kawano and Gleinig are from the same or similar field of endeavor. Kawano teaches combining a classical computer and a quantum computer in a hybrid manner of applying an algorithm involving a transformation of a quantum state to a modified quantum state. Gleinig teaches how sparsity can be used for efficient quantum state preparation.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify Kawano pertaining to transforming a quantum state to a modified quantum state with the sparse representation for quantum operation reduction of Gleinig.
The motivation to do so is for “polynomial-time algorithm that generates polynomial-size quantum circuits (linear in the number of nonzero coefficients times number of qubits) that prepare given states, making computer-aided design of sparse state preparation scalable.” (Gleinig, Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kawano and Gleinig teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, as described above in detail.
Gleinig teaches -
wherein the initial quantum state is represented by a first set of coefficients over a first state base (Gleinig, left column of p. 433, “I. Introduction,” second paragraph, teaches “the process of creating a specific initial quantum state that may encode input data or a problem instance. . . . [T]he possible states of a quantum computer are superpositions of basis states [(that is, a first state base)] and some of them can only be created with very complex circuits [(that is, the initial quantum state is represented by a first set of coefficients over a first state base)]”), and
the scarce representation utilizes a second set of coefficients over a second state base (Gleinig, right column of p. 433, “1.A. Background and Problem Formulation,” first paragraph, teaches that “[i]n many interesting quantum states, most of the coefficients cx are zero (that is, first set of coefficients over a first state base)]. We call quantum states with this property sparse quantum states. Letting
S
⊂
0,1
n
denote the set of basis states with nonzero coefficients, we have
PNG
media_image3.png
72
446
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hence, if |S| << 2n it is more efficient to specify Φ by only storing the set S and the coefficients cx; x ⋲ S [(that is, the scarce representation utilizes a second set of coefficients over a second state base)]”),
wherein the first set of coefficients comprises a greater number of coefficients than the second set of coefficients (Gleinig, right column of p. 433, “1.A. Background and Problem Formulation,” first paragraph, teaches “specify Φ by only storing the set S and the coefficients cx; x ⋲ S [(that is, the first set of coefficients comprises a greater number of coefficients than the second set of coefficients )]”).
Regarding claim 17, Kawano teaches all of the limitations of claim 12, as described above in detail.
Though Kawano teaches a qubit can exist as a zero, a one, or simultaneously as both 0 and 1, with a numerical coefficient which when squared in absolute value to represents the probability for each state, Kawano does not explicitly teach –
wherein the modified quantum state comprises
a scarce representation of the initial quantum state, wherein the initial quantum state is represented by a first set of coefficients over a first state base, and
the scarce representation utilizes a second set of coefficients over a second state base,
wherein the first set of coefficients comprises a greater number of coefficients than the second set of coefficients.
But Gleinig teaches -
wherein the modified quantum state comprises
a scarce representation of the initial quantum state (Gleinig, left column of p. 433, “I.A Background and Problem Formulation,” first paragraph, teaches “describing an n-qubit quantum state classically requires specifying all 2n amplitudes cx. However, in many interesting quantum states, most of the coefficients cx are zero. We call quantum states with this property sparse quantum states [(that is, any quantum state having the characteristic with “coefficients cx are zero” are ones having a scarce representation of the initial quantum state)]”), wherein the initial quantum state is represented by a first set of coefficients over a first state base (Gleinig, left column of p. 433, “I. Introduction,” second paragraph, teaches “the process of creating a specific initial quantum state that may encode input data or a problem instance. . . . [T]he possible states of a quantum computer are superpositions of basis states [(that is, a first state base)] and some of them can only be created with very complex circuits [(that is, the initial quantum state is represented by a first set of coefficients over a first state base)]”), and
the scarce representation utilizes a second set of coefficients over a second state base (Gleinig, right column of p. 433, “1.A. Background and Problem Formulation,” first paragraph, teaches that “[i]n many interesting quantum states, most of the coefficients cx are zero (that is, first set of coefficients over a first state base)]. We call quantum states with this property sparse quantum states. Letting
S
⊂
0,1
n
denote the set of basis states with nonzero coefficients, we have
PNG
media_image3.png
72
446
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hence, if |S| << 2n it is more efficient to specify Φ by only storing the set S and the coefficients cx; x ⋲ S [(that is, the scarce representation utilizes a second set of coefficients over a second state base)]”),
wherein the first set of coefficients comprises a greater number of coefficients than the second set of coefficients (Gleinig, right column of p. 433, “1.A. Background and Problem Formulation,” first paragraph, teaches “specify Φ by only storing the set S and the coefficients cx; x ⋲ S [(that is, the first set of coefficients comprises a greater number of coefficients than the second set of coefficients )]”).
[Examiner notes that the claim term “scarce” is synonymous with the term sparse; accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “scarce” covers the teachings of Gleinig pertaining to sparse matrices, which is not inconsistent with the Applicant’s disclosure (MPEP § 2111)).
Kawano and Gleinig are from the same or similar field of endeavor. Kawano teaches combining a classical computer and a quantum computer in a hybrid manner of applying an algorithm involving a transformation of a quantum state to a modified quantum state. Gleinig teaches how sparsity can be used for efficient quantum state preparation.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify Kawano pertaining to transforming a quantum state to a modified quantum state with the sparse representation for quantum operation reduction of Gleinig.
The motivation to do so is for “polynomial-time algorithm that generates polynomial-size quantum circuits (linear in the number of nonzero coefficients times number of qubits) that prepare given states, making computer-aided design of sparse state preparation scalable.” (Gleinig, Abstract).
Response to Arguments
14. Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, and responds below accordingly.
Section 101
15. Under Step 2A Prong One, “Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention is not merely an abstract idea which can be performed by the mind. Instead, it requires computing, on a classical computer, a modified quantum state and generating a modified quantum circuit utilizing those modified states to replace an original quantum sub-circuit that is configured to set the initial quantum state on the one or more qubits. The claims further recite executing the modified quantum circuit on a quantum computer. Execution of the modified quantum circuit by the quantum computer is the operative step through which the resource conserving benefit is realized. The claim therefore reflects a specific improvement to the technology of quantum-circuit execution, not merely an application of mathematics to a generic computational platform.” (Response at p. 11).
Examiner Response:
Examiner respectfully submits that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, as set out above in detail. Under Step 2A Prong One, the rejection identifies the judicial exception (for example, an abstract idea) by referring to what is recited (that is, set forth or described) in the claim and explains why it is considered an exception. Specifically, where the claim is directed to an abstract idea, the rejection identifies the abstract idea as it is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explains why it is an abstract idea. (see MPEP § 2106.07(a)).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims covers simulations of quantum components through a classical computer, which is not inconsistent with the Applicant’s disclosure. (MPEP § 2111; see, e.g., Specification ¶ 0023 (“the executable quantum circuit may comprise a machine representation that can be executed by a quantum hardware compiler, a logical program circuit that can be simulated by a classical computer or engine, or the like”; Specification ¶ 0081 (“On Step 150, the modified circuit may be executed on a quantum computer, a quantum simulator, or the like”)). That is, the claims do not recite how the execution takes place– a quantum circuit simulation is an activity where a generic computer component (classical computer) is used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), that under Step 2A Prong Two does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor under Step 2B amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are subject-matter ineligible, as set out above in detail
Sections 102/103
16. Applicant submits that “Claim 1 recites: "generating a modified quantum circuit based on the quantum circuit, the modified quantum circuit is configured to be executed by a quantum computer, the modified quantum circuit comprising the one or more qubits, wherein the modified quantum circuit excludes the original sub-circuit," Independent claims 12 and 20 have wording in similar fashion as claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
Applicant submits that Kawano fails to disclose or teach modifying a quantum circuit.
Specifically, Kawano does not disclose the recited circuit-to-circuit substitution: starting with a quantum circuit having an original state-setting sub-circuit, then modifying the quantum circuit to exclude the original sub-circuit and include a modified sub-circuit.” (Response at p. 13).
Also, Applicant submits that “[i]n the current case, the Office Action's interpretation is inconsistent with the Specification, which consistently distinguishes between (i) computing or transforming a modified quantum state and (ii) generating a modified quantum circuit. For example, ¶ 0031 of the Specification explains that, during a preprocessing stage performed on a classical computer, an initial quantum state is transformed into a modified quantum state. Separately, ¶ 0034 explains that after the preprocessing stage, a modified quantum circuit is generated during a processing stage by modifying a quantum circuit to replace one or more sub-circuits, or by generating a new quantum circuit containing new sub-circuits.
Thus, the Specification expressly treats state transformation and circuit generation as distinct operations.
Additionally, Applicant asserts that ¶ 0028 of the Specification, which was relied by the Office for allegedly teaching that a circuit is modified whenever a quantum state is changed, does not expressly or implicitly teach that a circuit is "modified" whenever a quantum state is changed. Conversely, ¶ 0028 first describes "transforming one or more initial quantum states . . . to obtain respective modified states," and then separately states that "a modified quantum circuit may be generated, in which the modified states are prepared on the respective qubits instead of the initial states." Thus, ¶ 0028 distinguishes between modified states and a modified quantum circuit. It does not equate the two.” (Response at pp. 13-14 (emphasis added by Applicant)).
Examiner Response:
Examiner is not persuaded by Applicant’s arguments to the limited breadth of the term “modified” because the claims do recite how that term is limited. The claims simply recite “generating a modified quantum” without regard to the nature, extent, and/or characteristics to what “modified” pertains.
Applicant relies upon the Specification, and extrinsic evidence, for limitations recited in the instant claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 20 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The claims recite “generating a modified quantum circuit.” Exemplar claim 1 recites:
1. A method comprising:
computing . . . a modified quantum state,
the modified quantum state is computed based on an application of a transformation on an initial quantum state,
the initial quantum state is associated with one or more qubits, a quantum circuit comprising the one or more qubits and an original sub-circuit that is configured to set the initial quantum state on the one or more qubits; and
generating a modified quantum circuit based on the quantum circuit,
the modified quantum circuit is configured to be executed by a quantum computer, the modified quantum circuit comprising the one or more qubits,
wherein the modified quantum circuit excludes the original sub-circuit,
wherein the modified quantum circuit comprises a modified sub-circuit, the modified sub-circuit is configured to set the modified quantum state on the one or more qubits of the modified quantum circuit during one or more cycles of the modified quantum circuit, . . . .
* * *
(claim 1, lines 1-13 (emphasis added by Examiner)).
Applicant, however, relies upon the Specification for limitations not recited by the instant claims. Applicant argues Kawano does not teach or disclose “the recited circuit-to-circuit substitution: starting with a quantum circuit having an original state-setting sub-circuit, then modifying the quantum circuit to exclude the original sub-circuit and include a modified sub-circuit.” (Response at p. 13). The instant claims do not recite such limitations.
Applicant argues that “generating a modified circuit” cannot be accomplished by modifying a quantum state of a quantum circuit. The claims are not so limited. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the broadest reasonable in view of the Applicant’s claims and disclosure thereto and accordingly, covers the teachings of Kawano.
The claims are not so limited as argued by Applicant because a plain reading of the claim itself relies upon an interrelation of the “modified circuit” and the “modified state.” The claim recites more details or specifics characterizing the “modified quantum circuit” in relation to “the modified quantum state,” “wherein the modified quantum circuit comprises a modified sub-circuit, the modified sub-circuit is configured to set the modified quantum state on the one or more qubits of the modified quantum circuit . . . .” (claim 1, lines 11-13). Simply put, the claims themselves do not limit a “modified quantum circuit” and a “modified quantum state” as being separate and distinct from one another.
Also, contrary to the guidance of In re Van Geun, Applicant also appears to source limitations from the Specification to be read into the claims. For example, the “modified quantum circuit” may be not only be an embodiment obtained “by modifying the quantum circuit,” but also by an embodiment obtained by a “new quantum circuit” altogether, where:
after the pre-processing stage, a modified quantum circuit may be generated during a ‘processing’ stage. In some exemplary embodiments, the modified quantum circuit may be generated by modifying the quantum circuit to replace one or more sub-circuits of the quantum circuit with new sub-circuits. In some exemplary embodiments, instead of modifying an existing quantum circuit, the modified quantum circuit may be obtained by generating a new quantum circuit that includes the new sub-circuits instead of the previous sub-circuit. In some exemplary embodiments, the modified quantum circuit may comprise new sub-circuits that are configured to prepare one or more modified states on respective qubits or qubit registers. In some exemplary embodiments, setting a modified state to a qubit may utilize less resources compared to setting the initial state to the qubit, e.g., due to its simplified representation.
(Specification ¶ 0034). The instant claims, however, are not tethered to these limitations. Though Applicant may argue the Specification “expressly treats state transformation and circuit generation as distinct operations,” limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Accordingly, in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover the teachings of Kawano as set out above in detail.
17. Applicant submits that “[a]dditionally, Under MPEP § 2111, BRI must be consistent with the interpretation that a person of ordinary skill in the art would reach. MPEP §2111.01 further provides that claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art, unless the specification provides a special definition.
In the present case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a quantum state and a quantum circuit are different technical objects. A quantum state is the information represented on one or more qubits, whereas a quantum circuit is an arrangement of gates, subcircuits, and/or operations configured to prepare or manipulate such information. For instance, different quantum states may be prepared using the same circuit structure, for example, by changing input data, amplitudes, parameters, or state-preparation values, without replacing or modifying the circuit itself. Conversely, a circuit can be modified without modifying a quantum state, for example by replacing a gate sequence with an equivalent gate sequence. Thus, modification of a quantum state and modification of a quantum circuit are independent technical concepts and should not be conflated. For example, see Michael A. Nielsen & Isaac L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge Univ. Press); IBM Quantum Leaming, Quantum Circuits.” (Response at pp. 14-15).
Examiner Response:
Though a “quantum state” does not in and of itself constitute a “quantum circuit,” a “quantum state,” however, is an essential component of the “quantum circuit” because the quantum state sets (that is, modifies) the starting point for the computation of a quantum circuit.
With regard to the instant claims, in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “modified,” a “modified quantum state” in kind “generates a modified quantum circuit.” Providing more specifics or details, the claim recites “wherein the modified quantum circuit comprises a modified sub-circuit . . . configured to set the modified quantum state on the one or more qubits of the modified quantum circuit during one or more cycles of the modified quantum circuit.” (Claim 1, lines 11-13).
The plain and ordinary meaning of “modified” is simply that which is changed from its original form, such as by a “modified quantum state.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of a "modified quantum circuit" is one that is based on modifying quantum states that covers the teachings of Kawano, which is not inconsistent with the Applicants' specification. (MPEP § 2111; see, e.g., Specification ¶ 0028 ("a modified quantum circuit may be generated, in which the modified states are prepared on the respective qubits instead of the initial states")). Moreover, the instant claims do not further limit or specific the term “modified,” which is a transitive verb, which is being or relating to a relation with the property that if the relation holds between a first element and a second and between the second element and a third, it holds between the first and their elements.
Applicant points to a extrinsic evidence in the form of a book titled “Quantum Computation and Quantum Information“ in support of the proposition that “modification of a quantum state and modification of a quantum circuit are independent technical concepts and should not be conflated.” (Response at p. 15). But Applicant does not specifically point to the portion of this extrinsic evidence that supports their argument, and accordingly, is simply a general argument.
Accordingly, Examiner does not find Applicant’s arguments persuasive in view of the generous BRI afforded by the instant claims.
With respect to the secondary references of Williams and/or Gleinig, the rejections under Section 103 hereinabove clearly sets forth which claim limitations are taught by each of the prior art references, and the reason why it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to combine their teachings, and Applicant has not explained why the cited prior art references cannot be combined in the manner set forth in the rejection.
Conclusion
18. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(Fosel et al., “Quantum circuit optimization with deep reinforcement learning,” arXiv (2021)) teaches However, it can be a formidable challenge to appropriately choose these transformations, and we make this decision the task of our agent. From the Reinforcement Learning perspective, this means that the quantum states are the circuits and the actions are the circuit transformations. By design, this approach immediately solves the challenge to finish with a correct, i.e., logically equivalent, circuit: we can preserve this property for the full process by allowing in each step only equivalence transformations.
(Nielsen et al., “Quantum Computation and Quantum Information,” Cambridge University Press (10th anniversary edition, 2010)) teaches quantum states have real, experimentally verifiable consequences, which we shall see are essential to the power of quantum computation and quantum information.
(US Published Application 20250013904 to Franz et al.) teaches term “quantum computational operations” and related term “quantum computation” may refer to operations on qubits that can change their quantum state. The quantum computational operations on one or multiple qubits can be carried out by quantum gates that manipulate a quantum state of the qubits or, in other words, with the quantum information carried by them. As is disclosed further below, a single qubit may form a single-qubit quantum state (e.g., a ground state, an excited state, or a superposition of both).
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KEVIN L. SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-5964. Normally, the Examiner is available on Monday-Thursday 0730-1730.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, KAKALI CHAKI can be reached on 571-272-3719. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.L.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/KAKALI CHAKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122
